NR #1995-037: For Immediate Release
Mt. Hamilton CRC Files $600,000 Lawsuit for Control of Church Building
Following Second Defeat in Ontario Courts
by John Van Dyk, Managing Editor
c 1995 Christian Renewal
Distributed by United Reformed News Service
Editor's Note: The text following is copyrighted by Christian Renewal but
available for reprint in whole or in part provided that proper
acknowledgement is given.
HAMILTON, Ontario (May 12, 1995) URNS - A dispute over who controls the
assets and property of a Christian Reformed congregation in Hamilton, Ontario
in the wake of a 1992 church split has gone from bad to "much" worse. A
$600,000 law suit was filed in February of this year by the current council
of the Mount Hamilton Christian Reformed Church against the former members of
the church who were on the council at the time of the bitter division.
Twenty-two officebearers are listed by name in a suit which includes the
church's former pastor, Rev. Raymond J. Sikkema, who continues to pastor the
majority of a congregation now organized as an independent church of
approximately 90 families.
The $600,000 suit follows two years of court action initiated by the
"continuing" Mount Hamilton CRC council in an effort to get the secular
courts to determine who controls the corporation known as Mount Hamilton CRC,
and in hopes of a ruling in their favour. After two rulings, one by a
provincial court judge followed by a three member court of appeals, in which
the outcomes favoured the former council but offered no definitive solution
to the impasse, the two sides are no closer to resolving the matter. The
financial cost to both churches has been in the thousands of dollars.
Among the most stunning charges in the lengthy 12-page statement of claim
against the pastor and 22 officebearers is that of "conspiracy... to injure
the plaintiffs and all other members of the congregation of the Mount
Hamilton Christian Reformed Church and all members who were driven from this
Church on or before the 30th of June, 1992," with an amount for damages of
$200,000. Two other amounts set at $200,000 each are cited for "breach of
fiduciary duty" and "punitive damages" for a total of $600,000.
The suit alleges that a "conspiracy" began in the church and was carried out
by the council, "when Raymond Sikkema was hired as pastor of Mount Hamilton
in or around 1981. Since 1981," the plaintiffs allege, "the defendants, under
the leadership of Raymond Sikkema, conspired with persons unknown to subvert
and undermine the unity of the Church." The suit states the "defendants used
their positions of trust within the Church to promote ideology and methods
contrary to the Church Order and to the Form of Subscription to which every
church officebearer must subscribe."
The purpose of the "conspiracy," the plaintiffs argue, was to "drive out of
Mount Hamilton confessing members of the Denomination, in order that the
defendants could take the trust property and keep it for their own purposes."
To further their ends, the plaintiffs say the "defendants used fear and
intimidation and other overt acts," which included:
* withholding ministry shares, "a form of tax imposed by the denomination to
pay for the charitable works of the Church, from the denomination";
* using the issue of women in office "to drive a wedge in the congregation of
Mount Hamilton and to further their plan of gaining control of the church
assets";
* voting to close the pulpit "to all ministers who would not confess to being
opposed to this extension of ecclesiastical office to women, in "a further
attempt on the part of the defendants to isolate the congregation from its
denominational ties;"
* silencing members of the congregation who objected to decisions of Council,
and urging them "to leave the church and worship elsewhere";
* attempting in April 1992 "to pass a by-law which would give them control
over the trust property of the Corporation in violation of the church order
and in violation of the terms of the trust";
* threatening to discipline "those members of the congregation who stood in
the way of the conspiracy."
The initial reaction to the lawsuit on the part of the officebearers listed
by name was one of shock. Elder John Klyn-Hesselink, chairman of the council
at the time of the church split in 1992, told Christian Renewal that he
received a sheriff at the door of his home around supper hour on a Wednesday
evening in February, just prior to a called meeting of the "Board of
Directors" - the council of the church before the split.
At the heart of the dispute, which is in its third year, is the question of
who rightfully determines how the church property should be divided - the
council which was in office when it attempted to lead the congregation out of
the CRC, or the council which was subsequently organized after Classis
Hamilton ruled, in an unusual decision, that the 22 officebearers and their
pastor had "de facto" resigned from their offices when they announced their
decision to lead the congregation out of the denomination. A provincial court
judge later ruled that the action of classis was "without foundation."
The church's pastor for 14 years, Rev. Raymond Sikkema, said he initially
considered the suit to be a personal attack against his ministry. "But," said
Sikkema, "after I thought about it for a while I came to realize that in the
final analysis they are slandering the Lord by their actions. They are
usurping the office established by God and to which we were lawfully
appointed."
"The primary concern has been to defend our office," said Sikkema. "Along
with that comes the right to deal with the assets. We have consistently and
persistently said we will follow 1970," referring to a synodical decision in
that year which prescribes the division of assets "pro rata," along the lines
of percentages in terms of the membership of both groups.
"To that end we offered the continuing church first choice on two assets
packages divided along the lines of 60% and 40%," said Sikkema.
So far the Mount Hamilton CRC council has been unwilling to consider such a
basis for division. "Instead," said Sikkema, "they offered to give us a
'gift' of some $150,000 in cash." Out of an assessed property value of over
$2 million, Sikkema said, this does not come anywhere near to approaching a
fair settlement.
Why can't the two sides come to a settlement? The Sikkemas believe that at
the root of the matter lies an undercurrent of hostility toward his ministry
which began at the time when Sikkema was being considered for the call to the
church in 1981. "There were some who didn't want my husband to come to
Hamilton, and they spent the 14 years of his ministry trying to prove
themselves right," Mrs. Christine Sikkema said in an interview in the church
parsonage in Hamilton.
Long considered one of the more conservative churches in the classis, the
Mount Hamilton CRC under the leadership of Sikkema was one of the more vocal
churches protesting the direction of a denomination on issues such as women
in office and creation/evolution. During his time in Classis Hamilton,
Sikkema represented the classis on numerous occasions as a delegate to synod.
When the council decided, almost unanimously after a number of years of
protesting trends within the denomination, to lead the congregation out of
the CRC, a decision the council announced would come if the 1992 synod did
not repent of the denomination's stand on women in office, "those who were
lying in wait and who had been waiting for some time, pounced," said Sikkema.
An attempt to call a meeting of shareholders (members) of the church to
change the corporation was stymied when a group of dissidents within the
church filed for and received a court injunction blocking the planned meeting
on September 22, 1992. Included on the agenda was a vote on the matter of
secession, a proposal to change the incorporation of the church to the
"Hamilton Independent CRC" from the "Mount Hamilton CRC," and discussion of
proposal to divide the assets. Following the injunction, Classis Hamilton met
in session and refused to seat the Mount Hamilton delegates. It then
declared, based on the recommendations of the Classical Interim Committee,
that the officebearers of Mount Hamilton had "de facto resigned from their
offices," and it dismissed the minister of the church from his office. The
officebearers say they never did, nor intended to, resign from their office.
An Ontario judge has since ruled, with an appeals court agreeing, that the
actions of classis were "without foundation" in its decision to treat the
officebearers as if they had resigned from their offices in the church.
In October of 1992, a court order prevented either side from dealing with
the distribution of the assets. A December 1992 agreement allowed both groups
to organize as churches without prejudicing either side's claim to a future
say in the distribution of the assets. The churches also agreed to share the
building for the time being, including the costs. As it stands, Sikkema said,
the only way a settlement can be reached is if both sides come to an
agreement on a settlement, or the courts lift the injunction.
Interim pastor of the church, Rev. Henry De Bolster, would not comment on
his council's recent decision to sue the 1992 officebearers for $600,000 when
reached by Christian Renewal. The former president of Redeemer College said
that negotiations should be allowed to occur without publicity, and he denied
any involvement in the council's spate of court actions. De Bolster was,
however, involved in at least one attempt to negotiate a settlement, and has
been the spokesman for the church at classis when this matter has been
addressed.
The chairman of the continuing CRC council, Elder John Schotsman, was
reached by telephone, but refused to comment on the case and would not answer
questions. He said regarding the litigation that it was unfortunate, but as
far as he could see, there did not seem to be any hope for a resolution of
the dispute through other means.
The most recent $600,000 lawsuit further hinders a resolution.
Sikkema believes that the purpose of the lawsuit is an attempt on the part
of the Mount Hamilton continuing council to circumvent the court injunction.
"This is really an attempt to deal with the assets in another way by
bypassing that injunction, something they have tried to do on a number of
other occasions," he said.
The nature of the court action has stirred some churches in Classis Hamilton
to action in an attempt to resolve the matter. Rev. Reimer Praamsma of
Ebenezer CRC in Jarvis, said the lawsuit was "disgraceful and harmful to the
cause of Christ."
But so far, says John Klyn-Hesselink, the churches' concerns "have centered
on the lawsuit, because it is an embarrassment to them, and not with the
heart of the matter, and that is the removal of the 1992 council from its
rightful office."
While some churches have taken to offering their services as arbitrators
between the two churches, Bethel CRC in Waterdown has written an overture for
the consideration of the May 16 meeting of Classis Hamilton. The overture
asks "that classis cease to support the continuing Mount Hamilton CRC in any
of its actions with regard to the independent congregation until both parties
have agreed to a settlement of property through binding arbitration." The
grounds cited are that "a) the current actions by both parties through the
secular courts is contrary to Scripture and extremely detrimental to the
cause of Christianity and the CRC; b) the spiritual lives and relationships
of all members in both congregations are being ruined by material greed; and
c) Classis, by its support of any of the ongoing councils' actions, is
contributing to the continuing efforts by either party to undermine the
position of the other."
Klyn-Hesselink takes issue with the substance of the overture. "They are
assuming that the whole thing hinges on property. We are simply in this
action because our offices were stolen from us," said Klyn-Hesselink. "To say
that material greed is involved here, they're making a big assumption since
they've never spoken to us about it."
If there are to be any negotiations, Sikkema said he would want the charges
withdrawn and a public apology made. "The first thing that has to take place
is that they not only withdraw this paper [the court claim], but that they
publicly acknowledge that they sinned against us when they signed this
paper." If this doesn't happen, said Sikkema, "then they better go to court."
"If we do not defend this, if they do not withdraw it with apologies, the
statements [accusations] have been made and they stick. The property is
important. They need a property and we need a property," said Sikkema. "But
our office is of much greater interest and concern than anything else because
this way we allow them to slander the work we have done, that I particularly
have done over the last 14 years and I think you may not, and then I say, 'I
appeal to Caesar.'"
Prior to the most recent lawsuit and following the court of appeals
decision, in which both sides claimed the ruling to be in their favour, the
Mount Hamilton CRC council did make an attempt at a settlement with a meeting
between the two negotiating teams in January. "Instead of meeting face to
face, we had to meet in a local Days Inn," said Sikkema. "They sit in one
room on one floor and we sit in another room on another floor and the lawyers
meet in a third room. And then they didn't negotiate. They said up front that
we're giving you a gift."
"They refuse to recognize that we have authority," Sikkema said. "The court
has ruled that the application, their application, is dismissed, which means
that they are not looked upon as the directors or as the council - we are. So
we can have that meeting which was already scheduled [back in 1992]. But they
don't want that because they keep saying that they are afraid that we want to
take everything, although we have clearly said to them on a half a dozen
occasions, here are two packages, and you may have first choice."
"But we're having second thoughts about giving them first choice now," said
Sikkema. "At a certain point we must say, 'No people, you cannot keep dealing
with us this way.'"
Unable to gain a court decision in their favour, the continuing Mt. Hamilton
council, after consultation with two leaders in the denomination, Rev. Peter
Borgdorff and Dr. David Engelhard, then decided to lapse the memberships of
all those who are worshipping in the independent church. The independent
church council saw this as another attempt to deal with the assets by
circumventing the injunction of October 1992.
In a written appeal to Classis Hamilton, John Klyn-Hesselink argued that the
decision to lapse was illegal because it goes against the court decision
preventing either party from dealing with the assets.
The appeal to classis points out how, in one instance, the continuing CRC
consistory asserts that the officebearers are no longer members of the church
since the 1992 classis decision, but then informs them in a December 1994
letter that their membership in the church has just been lapsed. "That says
to us that the lapsing of our membership is nothing other than a bold,
unscrupulous attempt to wrest from us by bald-faced assertion what legal
action in court denied them," the appeal states.
However, classis refused to deal with the appeal of the Hamilton Independent
CRC since "the appellant was no longer a member of the Christian Reformed
Church." Instead, the majority of classis supported the decision of the Mount
Hamilton CRC council.
Klyn-Hesselink intends to appeal the decision of classis to Synod 1995.
Whether synod hears the appeal is another matter. Two years ago, synod
refused to hear an appeal from the Hamilton Independent CRC since the church
was outside the denomination.
Another attempt to put an end to the most recent law suit is via an
affidavit prepared by Klyn-Hesselink which challenges the legitimacy of the
latest lawsuit.
In response to Klyn-Hesselink's affidavit, Mrs. Margaret Buma, former
secretary of now-retired Redeemer College president Henry De Bolster, and
member of the continuing CRC, wrote a 21-page affidavit challenging the
validity of statements in Klyn-Hesselink's affidavit. Buma is considered by
many to be the leader of the dissident group which sought an injunction
against the proposed meeting in September of 1992. She has been a fierce and
vocal opponent of Rev. Sikkema's ministry in Mount Hamilton.
"Margaret Buma is not an officebearer. Margaret Buma is not a plaintiff,"
noted Klyn-Hesselink. "Yet she signs an affidavit on behalf of the council."
Klyn-Hesselink has since responded to her response by way of a follow-up
affidavit.
The whole matter is expected to come to court in the next few weeks. The
lawyers' fees continue to mount. And the animosity between the two groups
seems only to grow with time.
Summary of Issues:
* The key issue for both churches is the question of membership in the
corporation and office in the church. In the opinion of two secular courts,
Classis Hamilton wrongly declared the officebearers to have "de facto"
resigned from their offices and were therefore no longer directors of the
corporation.
* Mt. Hamilton CRC believes and continues to argue that the independent
church is after control of the property.
* The council of September 1992 has stated and continues to state that it
wants to follow the recommendations of Synod 1970 which advised that churches
caught in schism divide the assets according to the number of members in each
group.
* The Independent CRC council argues the 1992 council has the legal right,
based on the appeals court decision, to call for a meeting of the corporation
to settle the assets.
* The continuing CRC continues to argue that the 1992 council has resigned as
declared by classis and is therefore in no position to call a meeting.
* A legal injunction continues to prevent either group from dealing with the
assets unless both are agreed on a settlement or a court lifts the
injunction.
* The ecclesiastical channels of the CRC have so far been closed to appeals
from the Independent CRC.
* Classis Hamilton has said from the beginning that it will work for an
amicable settlement of the assets.
Cross-References to Related RBPS Articles:
#1993-050: Battle over Christian Reformed Church Property in Hamilton
Continues Despite Seceder Victory in Canadian Court
Contact List:
Dr. Peter Borgdorff, Executive Director of Ministries, Christian Reformed
Church
2850 Kalamazoo Ave. SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49560 * O: (616) 246-0832 * H:
(616) 957-3288
Rev. Henry De Bolster, Interim Pastor, Mt. Hamilton Christian Reformed Church
15 McNiven Rd., Ancaster, ON L9G 3T3 * H: (905) 648-4969 * FAX: (905)
648-2134
Elder Peter Demik, Clerk, Mt. Hamilton Christian Reformed Church
171 Seneca Ave., Hamilton, ON L9B 1M1 * H: (905) 679-6173
Dr. David Engelhard, General Secretary, Christian Reformed Church in North
America
2850 Kalamazoo Ave. SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49560 * O: (616) 246-0744 * H:
(616) 243-2418 * FAX: (616) 246-0834
Elder John Klyn-Hesselink, Hamilton Independent Christian Reformed Church
241 Stone Church Road East, Hamilton, ON L9B 1B1 * H: (905) 387-3548
Rev. Riemer Praamsma, Pastor, Ebenezer Christian Reformed Church
117 Talbot St. E., Jarvis, ON N0A 1J0 * H/O: (519) 587-5444
Rev. Erick Schuringa, Pastor, Bethel Christian Reformed Church
PO Box 795, Waterdown, ON N0R 2H0 * O: (905) 689-7796 * H: (905) 689-3405
Rev. Ray Sikkema, Pastor, Hamilton Independent Christian Reformed Church
1411 Upper Wellington St., Hamilton, ON L9A 3S8 * O: (905) 383-8315 * H:
(905) 389-7821
------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/reformed: nr95-037.txt
.